Some Relevant Terms in the Study of Vietnamese Serial Verb Constructions

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (317.12 KB, 7 trang )

(1)<div class='page_container' data-page=1>

Some Relevant Terms in the Study

of Vietnamese Serial Verb Constructions

Lâm Quang Đông

VNU University of Languages and International Studies, 
Phạm Văn Đồng, Cầu Giấy, Hanoi, Vietnam

Received 15 December 2011 *

Abstract. Our previous article on multi-verb sentences [1] referred to such concepts as serial

verbs, serial verb constructions (SVC) and sequence of verbs, which have been widely used in 
studies on various languages in the world. When applied to research into the Vietnamese language,
however, these terms have caused certain confusion. This paper discusses some relevant concepts
and terms in order to help clarify such confusion, avoid improper views and accurately distinguish
true serial verb constructions from seemingly similar patterns when studying Vietnamese SVCs.
After the analysis, Vietnamese equivalents to the afore-mentioned terms are suggested to ensure
consistency and better reflect the true nature of our language.

1. Introduction*

Serial verb constructions (SVCs) are a
structure highly widespread in Creole
languages, in the languages of West Africa,
Southeast Asia, Amazonia, Oceania, and New
Guinea [2], including our Vietnamese language.
For several decades, SVCs have drawn
attention from various researchers in the world

as they reveal interesting features and
functioning of language as well as distinctive
properties between serializing and
non-serializing languages. Nevertheless, despite the
high prevalence of SVCs in our language, very
few specific investigations into Vietnamese
SVCs have been made to date. Those few were
mostly conducted by non-native Vietnamese
researchers, which are highly appreciated for

______

*Tel.: 84-4-33603180.

E-mail:

their pioneering endeavors and valuable
contributions to the body of linguistic
knowledge around the world.

</div>
(2)<div class='page_container' data-page=2>

2. Ceptualization of SVCs

In the introductory article to the volume

Serial Verb Constructions, a Cross-Linguistic 
Typology [2], Aikhenvald provides truly

comprehensive remarks based on the variety of
research works on serial verb constructions in
numerous languages in the world. Generally,
SVCs are conceptualized as follows [2:1-3]:

“A serial verb construction (SVC) is a
sequence of verbs which act together as a single
predicate, without any overt marker of
coordination, subordination, or syntactic
dependency of any other sort. Serial verb
constructions describe what is conceptualized
as a single event. They are monoclausal; their
intonational properties are the same as those of
a monoverbal clause, and they have just one
tense, aspect, and polarity value. SVCs may
also share core and other arguments. Each
component of an SVC must be able to occur on
its own. Within an SVC, the individual verbs
may have same, or different, transitivity values.

One verb in a serial construction may
describe the effect of the other. SVCs can
express grammatical meanings, as in (1), where
an SVC introduces an argument: a
“beneficiary” me. One verb in a serial 
construction may describe the effect of the
other, as in (3). SVCs may refer to sequences
of actions, as in (4)-(6); or just form lexical
idioms, as in (2). They may consist of two, or
more than two, verbs, as in (5) and (6).

- Baule (Kwa, Niger-Congo: Creissels
2000: 240)

(1) ɔ`-à-fà í swă n à-klè mĩ
he-ANT-take his house DEF ANT-show me

“He has shown me his house”. (take-show)
- Igbo (Igboid, Benue-Congo, Niger-Congo:
Lord 1975: 27)

(2) ó tì-wà-rà étéré à
he hit-split.open-TENSE plate the
“He shattered the plate”.

- Taba (Austronesian: Bowden 2001: 297)

(3) n=babas welik n=mot do
3sg=bite pig 3sg=die REAL
“It bit the pig dead”.

Alamblak (Papuan area: Bruce 1988: 27)
(4) wa-yarim-ak-h ta-n-m-ko

IMP-ELEV-get-put-2sg-3pl-ELEV
“Get them on a level plane toward me (and)
put them up there”.

Dâw (Makú, Northwest Amazonia)
(5) yõ:h bƏ:-hãm-yכּw

medicine spill-go-happen.straight.away
“The medicine spilt straight away”

Tariana (Arawak, Northwest Amazonia)
(6) phia-nihka [phita pi-thaketa] pi-eme
ha-ne-na hyapa-na-nuku ha-ne-riku-ma-se

you-REC.PAST.INFER 2sg+take
2sg-CROSS+CAUS 2sg-stand+CAUS
DEM-DISTAL-CL:VERTICAL hill-DEM-DISTAL-CL:VERTICAL-TOP.NON.A/S
DEM-DISTAL-CL:LOC-CL:PAIR-LOC

“Was it you who brought that mountain
across (lit. take-cross-put.upright) (the river) to
the other side?” (asked the king).

Also, according to Aikhenvald [2], serial
verb constructions are a grammatical technique
covering a wide variety of meanings and
functions. They do not constitute a single
grammatical category. They show semantic and
functional similarities to multiclausal and
subordinating constructions in non-serializing
languages. SVCs serve to provide in a uniform
way the sort of information that in the surface
grammar of languages like English is handled
by a formally disparate array of subordinating
devices: complementary infinitives, -ing 
complements, modal auxiliaries, adverbs,
prepositional phrases, even whole subordinate
clauses. The author concludes [2:3]:

</div>
(3)<div class='page_container' data-page=3>

in (2), (4), and (5). Their components may

always be contiguous, as in (6); or they may be
interruptable by other constituents, as in (1) and
(3). Some verbal categories may have to be
marked on every verb in a series, as with
anterior in (1) and person in (6); or just once per
construction, as with realis in (3). All
components of a serial construction may share
subject, as in (1-2), and (4-6). Or they may
share another argument: in (3) the object of the
first component (“bite”) is the same as the
subject of the second one (‘die’). The sharing
of one or more participants enables serial verb
constructions to represent a single event with
high contiguity”.

Aikhenvald, like other authors in the
volume, calls attention to the distinction
between SVCs and other idiomatic verb
combinations as well as their iconicity in order
to distinguish the meanings and functions of
various types of SVCs in the same language. In
many serializing language, it is impossible to
question each component of SVCs separately.
When repeated, an SVC may not be shortened
as a single verb. The order of SVC components
may correspond to the temporal, sequential
occurrences of the actions they denote. A
multi-componential SVC can express a series of
sub-events conceptualized as a holistic entirety,
or sub-events with their own internal structure.

The limit as to how many predicators can form
an SVC depends on each specific language.

With regards to the essential terms referring
to this particular structure, Aikhenvald [2:59]
reports,

“The term “serial verb construction” was
introduced by Balmer and Grant (1929), and
then reintroduced by Stewart (1963). The terms
“serial verb construction” and “serial verb”
have won general acceptance. A few alternative
terms appear in the literature — such as “verb
concatenations” (Matisoff 1969, 1973), or
“tandem patterns of verb expressions” (Senft
1986); or “multi-verb constructions”, or “verb
series” (Enfield forthcoming)”.

These are general views towards serial
verbs and SVCs. However, because these terms
contain the word verbs, and in many languages, 
other parts of speech may behave like verbs,
some confusion has entailed. Following are a
few noteworthy examples. Please note in
passing that the examples indicated by the small
Roman letters are our own, while those marked
with common Arabic numbers are original
evidence provided by the authors cited.

3. Adjectives vs. Verbs

In serializing languages like Korean and
Vietnamese, adjectives can assume the
predicative function which is normally
performed by verbs in other languages, and in
Korean, these adjectives have exactly the same
morphological endings as verbs. Due to their
identical syntactic behaviors, some authors even
have tried to argue that in fact “Korean lacks
the category of Adjective. I claim that what
have been traditionally analyzed as adjectives
are stative verbs. I demonstrate that apparent
noun-modifying adjectives in Korean are
predicates inside relative clauses” [3:71]. For
example, Kim [3:72] presents the following
evidence in Korean:

(2) a. John-un ppang-ul mek-nun-ta
J-TOP bread-ACC eat-PRST-IND
“John eats bread”.

b. John-un holangy-ke musep--ta
J-TOP tiger-NOM scary-PRST-IND
“John is scared of tigers”.

Compared:

(i) Tơi đói (Vietnamese)
I hungry

</div>
(4)<div class='page_container' data-page=4>

iii) Я голоден (Ya goloden) (verb goloden), 
(Russian) “I am hungry”, yet

(iv) Я Маленькое (Ya malenkoye)
I small

“I am small”

This could be the reason why some author
argues:

“In the Vietnamese parts of speech, a basic
state verb is a verb as well as being an
adjective. Therefore the use of negation is one
of the arguments to justify status as a verb as in
(1) and (1a)

(1) Anh ấy nhanh lắm.
eld bro that fast very
“He is very fast.”

(1a) Anh ấy không nhanh lắm.

eld bro that not fast very
“He is not very fast.”

The following sentence (1b) has a serial
verb construction.

(1b) Anh ấy hiểu nhanh lắm.

eld bro that understand fast very
NP VP VP AdvP
“He understands very fast.”

Sentence (1b) is derived from the
underlying sentence (1c)

(1c) Anh ấyi hiểu pro [CP [IP PRO i nhanh.]]

NP VP VP
Agt Pat Agt
“He understands very fast.”

In (1c), the verb hiểu “to understand” is a 
transitive verb, and the non-overt object of this
verb is pro, which is governed by the verb hiểu. 
In the infinitival clause the non-overt subject is
PRO, which is controlled by the overt object of
the main clause. This non-overt subject PRO is
not governed by I(nflection), which is empty in
the infinitival clause in Vietnamese. The
infinitival clause is an adjunct of the main
clause” [4].

In our view, this is a confusion. Since
Vietnamese is an isolating language with words
remaining unchanged in forms in all the variety
of meanings and functions they assume,
classifying Vietnamese words into different
parts of speech is not easy and may not always

promise accuracy. Such categorization
generally must base on their functioning in the
sentence as one of the criteria while their
functions vary significantly. In (1) and (1a),

nhanh cannot be categorized as a verb in terms

of parts of speech, and it may not be accurate to
conclude that a basic state verb is a verb as

well as being an adjective. Nhanh can be

classified as an adjective or an adverb,
depending on the type of sentence component it
modifies, and it can serve as the predicate in the
sentence on its own, like many nouns,
quantifiers and other parts of speech in
Vietnamese, as shown by quantifier and
adjective predicates in the following example:

(v) Bảy năm về trước em mười bảy
seven years back before you seventeen
Anh mới đôi mươi trẻ nhất làng
I just twenty young SUP(1) village 
“Seven years ago you were seventeen, I was
twenty, and we were the youngest in the
village”.

Since nhanh is a predicative adjective, it 
can be negated by the preceding không, like any

other verbs, adjectives or adverbs, which is
normal in Vietnamese. Negation, therefore,
cannot be taken as justification for the verbal
status of nhanh. Semantically, nhanh can be 
associated with a number of nouns like nhanh

tay, nhanh mắt, nhanh mồm, nhanh trí 
(fast-hand, fast-eye, fast-mouth, fast-mind), etc., and

can generate a variety of interpretations in this
case: he is handy, sociable, quick-witted,

dynamic, smart, etc. By contrast, in (1b), 
nhanh modifies the preceding verb hiểu, which

______

</div>
(5)<div class='page_container' data-page=5>

is the function of an adverb, and the negator can
be inserted either before hiểu or nhanh. 
Furthermore, the combination hiểu nhanh does 
not indicate any specific sub-events in a single
composite whole like (1), (2) and (3) in
Aikhenvald [2]:

(1) Anh ấy đưa tôi đi xem nhà
eld bro that take I go see house
“He showed me his house.”

(1)

Hắn đập vỡ

cái

đĩa

He hit break CLA(2) plate

“He shattered the plate.”

(2) Nó cắn chết con lợn
It bite kill CLA pig
“It bit the pig dead”

Anh ấy hiểu (He understands) and Anh ấy 
nhanh (He is fast) are two different events, which

apparently differ from Anh ấy hiểu nhanh (He

understands fast). If this author’s arguments held,

as both understand and fast are predicative, the 
English combination understands fast then would 
qualify as an SVC, which is obviously not the
case. Likewise, hiểu nhanh fails to be categorized 
as an SVC in Vietnamese.

Continuing the same vein, this author
argues for the co-occurrence of two verbs in

(5a) Ông đến trễ.
You arrive late
“You arrived late.”

Again, trễ is a predicative adjective and can 
function as an adverb, not a verb, so in our view

đến trễ does not qualify as an SVC in

Vietnamese like the author claims.

In sharp contrast, the combinations nhanh

nói and its opposite chậm nói, or nhanh/chậm 
biết nói in the following are true SVCs in

Vietnamese:

(vi) Cháu chị nhanh (biết) nói thế!

______

(2)

CLA: classifier

child sister fast (know) speak so
“Your child is so fast to speak!” (compared
to his/her age, i.e. your child starts speaking
earlier than others of the same age)

Cf.

(vii) Thằng bé này chậm (biết) nói quá!
boy this slow (know) speak too

“This boy is too slow to speak.” (i.e. this
boy starts speaking much later than others)

(viii) Thầy giáo nói nhanh/chậm quá!
Teacher speak fast slow too
“The teacher speaks too fast / too slowly!”
The reason why there exists such a
difference between nhanh/chậm biết nói and nói

nhanh/chậm, even though they contain the same

words, is in the semantic relations which bind
them together under governing principles. In

nhanh/chậm (biết) nói, nhanh and chậm,

adjectives as they remain in terms of parts of
speech, are the governing predicators which 
subcategorize a verbal complement nhanh/chậm

làm gì? (fast/slow to do what?) while in nói 
nhanh/chậm, these two are not governing

predicators; instead, they are governed by the
predicator nói which merely subcategorizes 
some kind of utterance as the product of the
speaking act and may, not must, require an 
adverbial modifier indicating the manner or
speed of the speaking act. Subcategorization,
or inherent semantic properties of the governing
predicators, thus qualify the combination

nhanh/chậm biết nói as an SVC, while nói

nhanh/chậm fails. This also explains why

different word orders of the same words in
Vietnamese can result in strikingly different
meanings, although some cases allow for
reversing word order without significant change
of meanings.

4. Random Sequence of Verbs vs. SVCs 
Proper

</div>
(6)<div class='page_container' data-page=6>

with loosely, randomly connected components
in SVC treatment. For instance,

(6a) Tôi nghỉ một lát
I rest one moment
lại tiếp tục làm

again continue work

“I rest a moment then continue to work.”
not all the three verbs nghỉ, tiếp tục and làm 
form an SVC, since nghỉ and tiếp tục do not 
refer to sub-events in a single entirety. Rather,
they merely share the same subject and describe
successive events, just like the following
English sentence

(ix) Surprisingly enough, they went through
the wall of the room easily, flew in the air, and

stood on a country road covered with snow
(Three Spirits, Folk Tale)

or a customary saying among our parent
generation who were Vietnamese young men in
the sixties and seventies of the previous
century:

(x) cắt cơm, bơm xe, nghe thời tiết, liếc
đồng hồ, vồ xe đạp

These are a series of actions, one after
another: [they] canceled meals at the cafeteria,

pumped up the tyres, listened to the weather, 
grabbed the bike and rode off on weekend to

meet their dates. In this example (6a), only tiếp

tục and làm constitute an asymmetrical SVC

with tiếp tục (continue) being a type of 
defective verb which must be accompanied by a
verbal complement, and such asymmetrical
SVCs with defective verbs abound in
Vietnamese, sufficient to form a sub-class of
their own.

Meanwhile, the author [4] posits that in the
following instance:

(7a) Chúng ta đưa con đi chơi công viên
we bring child go play park
NP VP NP VP NP
“We bring our child to the park to play”
(Our family have a day out in the park)

there are only two verbs bring and play while 
constructions with go and another verb like

play, eat, get are widespread SVCs in

Vietnamese, which means there are as many as
3 verbs in the sentence. Other instances in
Vietnamese reveal that SVCs are frequently
formed with 3 or even more than 3 verbs and/or
coverbs, e.g.:

(xi) Tuy nhiên, sau khi viên sĩ quan Hoa Kỳ
vừa được trả tự do thì ơng [Nguyễn Văn Trỗi]
bị đưa đi xử bắn

bring go try shoot

“However, as soon as the American officer
was released, Nguyen Van Troi was taken to be
shot by a firing squad in execution of the death
sentence.”

(xii) Bính đưa quà bánh vào thăm Năm

bring enter visit

“Bính brought gifts to Năm in her visit”
[while Nam was in jail]

(xiii) Chính Quyền đưa cái thư điều đình
bring/hand

cho chúng tôi xem.
give see

“It was Quyen who showed us the letter of
agreement.”

or Bisang [5] noticed in our language:
(xiv) Muốn biết được thua phải đi hỏi
want know win lose must go ask
(lit. “if you want to know whether you have
won or lost, you must go and ask” or “if you
want to know who has won or lost, you must go
and ask”) in which Bisang believes the first
SVC comprises 4 different verbs want know

win lose and the second SVC is composed by

two verbs go ask, and the whole sentence 
contains nothing but verbs. However, we would
argue that there are two SVCs in this sentence: the
second SVC is made up of đi hỏi (go ask), but the 
first consists of only two verbs muốn and biết

(want to know), while được thua (win lose) is in

</div>
(7)<div class='page_container' data-page=7>

everything else has been removed, leaving only
the two verbs behind, as the English explanation
in parentheses above has clearly shown.

In English, the type of constructions

go/come + V (bare infinitive) such as go jump 
in the lake, go fly a kite, go eat lunch, go see 
who’s at the door, come have dinner with us is

common, too, and these qualify as SVCs
proper. Therefore, the reason why đi chơi, go

play are not considered SVCs in this article [4]

remains unclear.

5. Concluding Remarks

Through our analyses and discussion in the
paper, we have argued that serial verbs do not
necessarily include solely verbs in Vietnamese;
rather, they comprise predicators, which in turn 
encompass both verbs and predicative
adjectives. The Vietnamese equivalent
terminology to Serial Verbs therefore should be

vị từ kết chuỗi [6] or vị từ chuỗi (lit. serial

predicators) for short rather than động từ chuỗi,

and SVCs would be translated as kết cấu vị từ

chuỗi. Meanwhile, the expressions series of 
verbs or sequence of verbs - chuỗi vị từ are

broad terms which can refer to any occasions of
predicators occuring together which may
happen to share the same subject.

In fact, apart from the afore-mentioned
confusion, our on-going study of Vietnamese
SVCs has encountered a number of other issues
of theoretical and practical nature as well,
which cannot be presented in a short paper like
this one. However, the issues analyzed and
discussed herein serve as the fundamentals
before one can be clear what are SVCs and
what not in his/her linguistic treatment.

It is important to note that SVC concepts
which have effectively applied in other
serializing languages may not readily apply to
Vietnamese SVCs without necessary
modifications or being located within its
internal linguistic system. In other words,
Vietnamese SVCs must be considered within

the context of the language itself, and any
immediate importation of SVC patterns from
other languages, serializing or non-serializing,
may render the treatment imprecise, alien or
untrue to the nature of our language.

References

[1] Lâm Quang Đông, Identifying the representational
semantic structure of multi-verb sentences in English
and Vietnamese, VNU Journal of Science, No 27, 
(2011) 143.

[2] Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y, “Serial Verb Constructions
in Typological Perspective”, in Aikhenvald,
Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R.M.W (eds.) Serial Verb

Constructions, a Cross-Linguistic Typology, New

York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

[3] Kim, Min-Joo, „Does Korean Have Adjectives“? In
T. Ionin et al. eds., MIT Working Papers in

Linguistics 43, (2002a) 71.

[4] Sophana Srichampa, “Serial Verb Constructions in
Vietnamese”, Mon-Khmer Studies 27 (1996) 137. 
[5] Bisang, Walter, "Verb Serialization and Converbs -

Differences and Similarities“, in Haspelmath, Martin
and König, Ekkehard (ed.) Converbs in

Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,

(1995) 137.

</div>